Re: [tied] The Indo Hittite Hypothesis

>Well, there's no longer anything heterodox about the assumption of a
>primary split into Anatolian and "the Rest", and I suppose most of our
>regular posters wouldn't feel surprised or excited about it, since they
>believe in it anyway.

Yes, that seems unavoidable, but I was surprised by this:

>"The crucial point is that limited but compelling evidence
> now shows that the rest of the Indo-European languages underwent a set
> of shared common innovations in which Anatolian did not share."

I know that is one possible, and commonly held, idea, but I wouldn't have
thought it held the floor in the same way as the basic "Anatolian and the
Rest" theory does. What about the theory that it is Hittite which has
innovated, losing features which are preserved in the Rest - or the third
possibility, to my mind more attractive, that both Anatolian and the Rest
have innovated? I don't know enough of the current debate to judge where
the consensus is.

Peter